See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275656710

The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Internal

structure, criterion and incremental validity in an Italian sample

Article in Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development · April 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0748175615596786

CITATIONS READS

12 8,975

5 authors, including:

Federica Andrei Martin M Smith

University of Bologna University of British Columbia - Vancouver
32 PUBLICATIONS 397 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 1,092 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bruno Baldaro Don Saklofske

University of Bologna The University of Western Ontario
58 PUBLICATIONS 1,608 CITATIONS 554 PUBLICATIONS 9,467 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Taxonomy of Human Personality Constructs View project

Critiques of astrology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin M Smith on 28 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

596786
research-article2015
MECXXX10.1177/0748175615596786Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and DevelopmentAndrei et al.

Article
Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development
The Trait Emotional Intelligence 1­–12
© The Author(s) 2015
Questionnaire: Internal Structure, Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Convergent, Criterion, and DOI: 10.1177/0748175615596786
mec.sagepub.com
Incremental Validity in an Italian
Sample

Federica Andrei1, Martin M. Smith2, Paola Surcinelli1,

Bruno Baldaro1, and Donald H. Saklofske2

Abstract
This study investigated the structure and validity of the Italian translation of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire. Data were self-reported from 227 participants. Confirmatory
factor analysis supported the four-factor structure of the scale. Hierarchical regressions also
demonstrated its incremental validity beyond demographics, the Big Five, emotion regulation
strategies, and self-enhancement.

Keywords
personality factors, criterion-related validity, construct validity, content validity, CFI, trait
emotional intelligence

The debate surrounding emotional intelligence
(EI) continues to captivate psychologists, as
demonstrated by the consistent increase in the
number of peer-reviewed EI articles. One of the
most prominent and promising models in this
field is trait EI (trait emotional self-efficacy;
Petrides & Furnham, 2001, 2003). Trait EI is
defined as an umbrella construct of emotion-
related dispositions and self-perceptions, located
at the lower levels of personality hierarchies
(Pérez-González & Sanchez-Ruiz, 2014;
Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007), and measur-
able through self-report inventories. Although
the pattern of associations between trait EI and
each higher order factor of the Big Five model
(Petrides et al., 2010) reinforces such conceptu-
alization, one of the main criticisms of trait EI is
its overlap with the Big Five personality traits
(e.g., Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2008), in
particular Neuroticism (i.e., Emotional Stability).
Past research provides evidence for the util-
ity of trait EI across important domains of
functioning, such as those of health (Austin,
Saklofske, & Egan, 2005), mental health (Mar-
tins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010), education
(Vesely, Saklofske, & Nordstokke, 2014), sport
(Laborde, Brüll, Weber, & Anders, 2011), and
work (Siegling, Nielsen, & Petrides, 2014).
Despite this, the majority of past research has
focused primarily on the role of trait EI in
applied contexts, with construct and instru-
ments validation being largely neglected
(Stough, Saklofske, & Parker, 2009). Thus, a
potential source of bias in the interpretation of
past findings resides in the measure chosen to
operationalize trait EI. In fact, a variety of
1
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
2
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario,
Canada
Corresponding Author:
Federica Andrei, Department of Psychology, University
of Bologna, viale Berti Pichat 5, Bologna 40127, Italy.
Email: federica.andrei2@unibo.it

Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015

2 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
scales claiming to assess trait EI have been
developed in the past 20 years (Petrides, Furn-
ham, & Mavroveli, 2008), with differences in
their operational definitions as well as in their
content domains. Furthermore, while there is a
certain degree of convergence among scores
derived from different measures (e.g., Austin,
Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004; Brack-
ett & Mayer, 2003; Gardner & Qualter, 2010),
there is still controversy about which facets are
subsumed under the framework of trait EI, as
only a small number of facets are shared by the
majority of trait EI’s conceptualizations. More-
over, some of the proposed models are broad
and include multiple affect-related components
such as happiness, empathy, and impulsiveness
(e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2001), whereas oth-
ers comprise relatively few elements, like emo-
tion use and perception (e.g., Schutte et al.,
1998), which are roughly analogous to Mayer,
Salovey, and Caruso (2000) four-branch model.
To provide deeper insight into the validity of
trait EI, concerns raised regarding its predictive
utility must be addressed. Some authors con-
tend that there is a paucity of research on the
predictive contribution of trait EI’s subdimen-
sions, as the majority of studies addressing
issues such as incremental validity perform
analysis at the level of the global trait EI com-
posite (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2012).
Given the claims for trait EI to demonstrate its
effectiveness over and above higher order per-
sonality traits (Landy, 2005; Zeidner et al.,
2008), providing substantial evidence for trait
EI’s incremental validity beyond such dimen-
sions is an important step to take. In addition,
considering its multifaceted nature, tests of the
predictive utility of trait EI’s components would
help determine whether subdimensions predict
a portion of variance over theoretically mean-
ingful criteria, and conversely, whether factors
are redundant or not capable of accounting for
incremental effects. Examinations at the factor
level are a valuable source of information about
constructs constitutive elements, as at the global
composite level, the contributions of single ele-
ments are averaged (Smith, Fischer, & Fister,
2003). Furthermore, considering trait EI’s poten-
tial in applied settings (Stough et al., 2009;
Vesely, Saklofske, & Leschied, 2013), it is
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
imperative to investigate the psychometric
properties of instruments that measure this con-
struct and whether they are valid predictors of
theoretically meaningful outcomes. Improving
the accuracy of trait EI’s assessment can ulti-
mately provide psychologists with a clearer
framework for its description and measurement.
The Present Study
In light of past evidence on trait EI measure-
ment, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Question-
naire (TEIQue; Petrides, 2009) was chosen to
assess trait EI considering both its cross-cultural
stability (e.g., Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler,
Scherl, & Rindermann, 2008; Jolić-Marjanović
& Altaras-Dimitrijević, 2014; Martskvishvili,
Arutinov, & Mestvirishvili, 2013; Mikolajczak,
Luminet, Leroy, & Roy, 2007) and good psy-
chometric properties, including superior incre-
mental validity when compared with other trait
EI measures (Freudenthaler et al., 2008; Gard-
ner & Qualter, 2010). Although the TEIQue has
a multifactorial structure, the majority of studies
focusing on its incremental validity performed
their analyses at the global-composite level
(Andrei, Siegling, Aloe, Baldaro, & Petrides,
2015). However, those few investigations using
the second-order elements of the TEIQue (i.e.,
factors) as individual predictors showed that
Well-Being and Self-Control were the generally
the only incremental contributors (Andrei et al.,
2015). The underlying multidimensionality of a
complex individual difference construct such as
trait EI requires a thorough and long-term exam-
ination. Additionally, although a number of
studies using Italian translations of the TEIQue
have been published, they focused on samples of
children (Agnoli et al., 2012; Russo et al., 2012)
and adolescents (Andrei, Mancini, Trombini,
Baldaro, & Russo, 2014; Di Fabio & Saklofske,
2014; Gugliandolo, Costa, Cuzzocrea, Larcan,
& Petrides, 2015). Specifically, with the excep-
tion of Di Fabio and Saklofske (2014), all stud-
ies using Italian translation of the TEIQue used
either the child (i.e., TEIQue-CF) or the adoles-
cent (i.e., TEIQue-AF) forms.
As a consequence of these considerations, the
present study investigated the structure of the
Italian translation of the TEIQue targeting adults
Andrei et al.
and its incremental validity at both the higher
(i.e., global composite) and lower (i.e., factor)
levels over a series of construct-relevant criteria.
A replication of the four-factor structure of the
instrument was expected. In addition, the TEIQue
was expected to account for a meaningful portion
of the variance in criteria related to emotional
experience and outcome variables such as
depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms. Sig-
nificant predictive effects for the TEIQue were
also expected beyond predictors such as the Big
Five, self-enhancement and emotion regulation
strategies, given their theoretical relevance to
both trait EI’s construct and the chosen criteria.
In the case of the Big Five, to provide a complete
representation of personality dimensions, a long
inventory was used. This choice compensated for
the lack of studies investigating incremental pre-
dictive validity hypotheses by means of incom-
plete or abbreviated operationalizations of higher
order personality traits (Landy, 2005). Overall,
greater incremental effects of the four TEIQue
factors entered as a set were expected, with sig-
nificant contributions mainly attributable to the
factors Well-Being and Self-Control, in line with
the existing literature.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 227 Italian native
speakers (66 male; Mage = 23.84, SD = 5.43).
The majority of participants were educated to
a high school level (53%), whereas the
remaining reported a higher level of postsec-
ondary education (e.g., bachelor’s degree,
master’s degree, PhD). Occupations were
diverse, with most participants being students
(n = 162) enrolled in different university
majors, with the highest percentage from
nursing (48.1%) and psychology (28%).
Measures
Trait EI. The TEIQue (Petrides, 2009; Italian
translation by A. Chirumbolo) comprises 153
items rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
TEIQue provides a broad and heterogeneous
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
3
operationalization of the construct of trait EI,
as its facets, or first-order level elements, com-
prise 15 narrow traits which were systemati-
cally derived from content analysis of existing
EI models and related constructs (e.g., alexi-
thymia; Petrides, 2009). A total of 13 of the 15
facets load onto four oblique factors: Well-
Being (trait optimism, happiness, and self-
esteem), Self-Control (emotion regulation,
low impulsiveness, stress management), Emo-
tionality (trait empathy, emotion perception,
emotion expression, relationships) and Socia-
bility (emotion management, assertiveness,
social awareness), whereas the remaining two,
namely adaptability and self-motivation, con-
tribute directly to the global trait EI score.
Big Five and Self-Enhancement. The Italian Big
Five Questionnaire–2 (BFQ-2; Caprara, Bar-
baranelli, Borgogni, & Vecchione, 2007) was
employed. The BFQ-2 is a 134-item instru-
ment measuring Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Openness. In addition, the BFQ-2 comprises a
Lie scale, which assesses socially desirable
responding. Items are rated on a 5-point Lik-
ert-type scale ranging from complete dis-
agreement (very false for me) to complete
agreement (very true for me). The BFQ-2 is a
well-established personality inventory, with
excellent psychometric properties (Vecchi-
one, Alessandri, & Barbaranelli, 2012). Reli-
ability coefficients in the present sample were
good (Cronbach’s α = .81, .85, .91, .84, .84,
and .62 for Extraversion, Agreeableness, Con-
sciousness, Emotional Stability, Openness,
and the Lie scale, respectively).
Emotion Regulation. The Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003;
Italian adaptation by Balzarotti, John, & Gross,
2010) is a measure designed to assess individ-
ual differences in the habitual use of two emo-
tion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal
(six items) and expressive suppression (four
items). Participants responded on a 7-point
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Internal consistencies for
both scales were good (α = .78 and .81 for
reappraisal and suppression, respectively).
4 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Psychological and Somatic Symptoms. Symp-
toms related to emotional and somatic well-
being were assessed using the Symptom
Questionnaire (SQ; Kellner, 1987; Italian
adaptation by Fava et al., 1983). The SQ con-
tains 92 items with a dichotomous response
format (i.e., both yes/no and true/false) and
provides scores on four scales of distress
symptoms (depression, anxiety, somatization,
and hostility-irritability), as well as scores on
four scales of well-being (contentment, relax-
ation, physical well-being, and friendliness).
Past research supports the reliability and validity
of the SQ (e.g., Rafanelli et al., 2000). With the
exception of friendliness (Cronbach’s α = .60),
internal consistencies for the SQ’s scales were
good (alpha values ranged from .71 for relax-
ation to .87 for hostility-irritability).
Procedure
The study was approved by the ethics com-
mittee of the University of Bologna (Italy).
The present study was promoted through
online advertisements and posters at a large
Italian university. Questionnaires were com-
pleted via an online survey system by 102 par-
ticipants, whereas the remaining 125 were
provided with an envelope and instructed to
return their completed questionnaires with no
further identifying information. In both cases,
participation was on a voluntary basis.
Data Analytic Strategy
A confirmatory factor analysis framework,
analyzed in Mplus 6.0, tested the fit of the
translated Italian TEIQue. For all models,
robust maximum likelihood was used. The pat-
tern missing option in Mplus was used for
missing data. A comparative fit index and a
Tucker–Lewis index in the range of .95 and a
root mean square error of approximation in the
range of .06 suggest excellent model fit (Byrne,
2012). In addition, a series of hierarchical mul-
tiple regression analyses were conducted to
determine if scores on the TEIQue added sig-
nificantly to the prediction of psychological and
somatic symptoms. Particularly, each model
included demographics (Step 1), the Big Five
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
and self-enhancement (Step 2), and emotion
regulation strategies (Step 3) as predictors. The
last step of each model comprised either the
global or the four factor scores of the TEIQue
(shown as Step 4a and Step 4b, respectively).
Adjusted multiple R2 (i.e., R2adj) were used in
comparisons to adjust for the number of
degrees of freedom across regression models.
Results
Factor Structure of the TEIQue
The theoretical factor structure of the TEIQue,
on which the a priori scoring key is based (see
Table 1) was confirmed by a confirmatory
factor analysis, allowing for correlated residu-
als (see Figure 1). The model fit was accept-
able: χ2(54) = 127.747; comparative fit index
= .926; Tucker–Lewis index = .893; root mean
square error of approximation = .078, 95%
confidence interval [.060, .095], standardized
root mean square residual = .068. Standard-
ized factor loadings ranged from .50 to .96,
with the exception of impulsivity (.26). Cor-
related residuals were specified for the fol-
lowing pairs of facets: optimism and happiness
(.46), optimism and stress (.14), relationships
and happiness (.14), assertiveness and empa-
thy (−.13), and stress and self-esteem (−.23).
In line with the existing literature on the
TEIQue (e.g., Freudenthaler et al., 2008), all
correlated residuals are theoretically plausi-
ble, considering, for instance, that happiness
and optimism are closely related to each other,
and that assertiveness may often be associated
with verbal aggression, leasing to a negative
overlap with empathy.
Reliabilities and Bivariate
Correlations
Table 1 presents alpha values, means and stan-
dard deviation for the TEIQue variables. Reli-
ability coefficients for the four factors and the
global TEIQue composite were good(Cronbach’s
α = .84, .71, .77, and .86 for Well-Being, Emo-
tionality, Sociability, and trait EI global score,
respectively), with the exception of Self-
Control that showed somewhat lower reliability
Andrei et al. 5

Table 1. Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics for the TEIQue Facets, Factors, and Global Score
(N = 227).

Facets/Factors N Items Cronbach’s α M SD

Self-esteem 11 .84 4.74 1.01
Emotion-expression 10 .88 4.31 1.25
Self-motivation 10 .71 4.74 0.85
Emotion-control 12 .68 3.92 0.74
Trait-Happiness 8 .88 5.39 1.18
Trait-Empathy 9 .75 5.09 0.85
Social awareness 11 .76 4.65 0.85
Impulsivity (low) 9 .68 4.52 0.91
Emotion perception 10 .79 4.90 0.89
Stress management 10 .81 4.11 1.04
Emotion-management 9 .69 4.78 0.84
Trait-Optimism 8 .85 4.85 1.19
Relationships 9 .57 5.39 0.75
Adaptability 9 .71 4.22 0.84
Assertiveness 9 .61 4.55 0.81
Well-Being 27 .84 4.99 0.98
Self-Control 31 .57 4.18 0.66
Emotionality 38 .71 4.93 0.69
Sociability 30 .77 4.66 0.69
Global trait EI 153 .86 4.68 0.56

Note. TEIQue = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire; EI = emotional intelligence.

levels (α = .57). Reliabilities for 10 facets were
good (alpha ranged between .88 for happiness
and emotion expression and .71 for adaptability
and self-motivation), 3 were acceptable (alpha
ranged between .69 for emotion management
and .61 for assertiveness), while alpha value was
poor for the “relationship” facet (i.e., .57; see
Table 1).
As shown in Table 2, different patterns of
correlations between the TEIQue scores and
the study variables were observed (the corre-
lation matrix of all study variables is available
on request from the corresponding author).
Results indicate Well-Being, Self-Control,
and global trait EI had strong positive correla-
tions with Emotional Stability (ps < .001). In
addition, the Sociability and Emotionality
factors showed strong positive associations
with Extraversion (p < .001) and Agreeable-
ness (p < .01), respectively. With few excep-
tions (e.g., in the case of the association
between Sociability and both physical well-
being and friendliness), at both the global- and
the factor-scores level, the TEIQue showed
significant positive/negative correlations with
adaptive/maladaptive outcomes.
Incremental Validity
Table 3 shows that the inclusion of the Big
Five at Step 2 provided a significant increase
in R2adj values in six out of eight criteria. In all
cases, a significant contribution of Emotional
Stability was observed. Conscientiousness
was a significant predictor of anxiety only, dis-
playing a weaker effect compared with Emo-
tional Stability. Emotion regulation strategies
included at Step 3 provided a contribution for
somatization and contentment only. In the first
pool of regression analyses, the global score of
the TEIQue entered at Step 4a showed a sig-
nificant negative beta weight in depression,
anxiety, somatization, and hostility-irritability.
Furthermore, positive significant betas for the
TEIQue were found over contentment, relax-
ation, and physical well-being (see Table 3).

Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015

6 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development

Figure 1. CFA of the theoretical four-factor structure of the TEIQue.

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; TEIQue = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire.

Regressions were rerun for all criteria by
entering the four TEIQue factors as the last step
in place of the global score (Step 4b). Overall,
the four factors showed significant incremental
effects over the seven criteria beyond other pre-
dictors, with the exception of friendliness only.
Specifically, Well-Being emerged as a signifi-
cant predictor over depression, anxiety,
somatization, contentment, relaxation, and
somatic well-being. Additionally, Self-Control
increased meaningfully the amount of variance
accounted for in both anxiety and hostility-irri-
tability. All incremental effects were in the
expected direction with criterion. No signifi-
cant contributions were found for either Socia-
bility or Emotionality.
For parsimony, the change in beta weights
corresponding to significant predictors are not
reported in Table 3. However, while Emo-
tional Stability showed a significant effect at
Step 2, deflations in its beta weights were
observed when either the global (Step 4a) or

Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015

Andrei et al. 7

Table 2. Bivariate Correlations of the TEIQue Global and Factor Scores With Study Variables.

Global TEI Well-Being Emotionality Self-Control Sociability

Big Five
Extraversion .37*** .30*** .15* .18** .45***
Agreeableness .27*** .21** .26** .14* .16*
Conscientiousness .24*** .14* .14* .22*** .16*
Emotional Stability .46*** .46*** .21** .58*** .09
Openness .31*** .25*** .23*** .24*** .20**
Self-enhancement .37** .34** .18** .44** .13
Emotion regulation
Reappraisal .11 .14* .06 .00 .11
Suppression −.36*** −.27*** −.50*** −.05 −.26***
Criteria
Depression −.51*** −.59*** −.19** −.45*** −.26***
Anxiety −.28*** −.37*** −.03 −.37*** −.07
Somatic symptoms −.34*** −.39*** −.16* −.31*** −.17**
Hostility-irritability −.30*** −.28*** −.18** −.39*** −.05
Contentment .26** .32** .17** .04 .17*
Relaxation .42** .44** .21** .37** .22**
Physical well-being .19** .23*** .08 .20** .06
Friendliness .19* .14* .19* .13* .09

Note. TEIQue = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the four-factor (Step 4b) scores of the TEIQue
were entered in the regression model. The
extent of beta weights attenuation for Emo-
tional Stability varied depending on the crite-
rion under consideration. The only exception
was in the case of somatic symptoms, where
beta weights for Emotional Stability remained
nearly the same.
Discussion
The present study examined the structure and
validity of the Italian TEIQue (Petrides, 2009;
Italian translation by A. Chirumbolo). Results
add to the growing body of evidence support-
ing the cross-cultural validity and reliability of
the TEIQue’s internal structure. In addition,
our results complement and replicate Di
Fabio’s (2013) findings in support of the psy-
chometric properties of the TEIQue. However,
in contrast to Di Fabio (2013) who investi-
gated the utility of the TEIQue in a sample of
adolescents, the present research examined the
predictive utility of the full-form adult specific
version of the Italian TEIQue. Specifically,
previous investigations used versions targeting
either children or adolescents (Agnoli et al.,
2012; Andrei et al., 2014; Gugliandolo et al.,
2015; Russo et al., 2012).
At both the global and the factor level, the
TEIQue correlated in theoretically congruent
ways with the Big Five. As expected, the
strongest associations were found with Emo-
tional Stability, in accordance with both the
existing literature (Freudenthaler et al., 2008)
and the operationalization of trait EI as
encompassing the emotion-related aspects of
personality (Petrides et al., 2007). With the
exception of friendliness, controlling for the
Big Five and other predictors (e.g., self-
enhancement and emotion regulation strate-
gies) did not negate the TEIQue’s associations
with construct-relevant criteria such as
depression, anxiety, and somatization. These
findings support the expectation that trait EI
predicts affect-related variables. Moreover,
the overall deflation in the contribution of
Emotional Stability in predicting criterion,
represented by changes in R2adj coefficients,
suggests that the TEIQue scores cover more

Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015

 8
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Demographics (Step 1), the Big Five (Step 2), Emotion Regulation Strategies (Step 3), and Either Global Trait EI
(Step 4a), or the TEIQue Factors (Step 4b).
Criterion Depression Anxiety Somatization Hostility-Irritability Contentment Relaxation Physical Well-Being Friendliness

Step 1 F(2, 202) = 3.91* F(2, 202) = 3.44* F(2, 202) = 10.88*** F(2, 202) = 3.99*** F(2, 202) = 1.67 F(2, 202) = 4.22* F(2, 202) = 2.58 F(2, 202) = 2.03
Step 2 F(8, 196) = 5.11*** F(8, 196) = 5.68*** F(8, 196) = 7.09*** F(8, 196) = 5.26*** F(8, 196) = 1.58 F(8, 196) = 5.41*** F(8, 196) = 2.54* F(8, 196) = 1.65
Step 3 F(10, 194) = 4.21*** F(10, 194) = 4.94*** F(10, 194) = 6.60*** F(10, 194) = 4.74*** F(10, 194) = 2.24* F(10, 194) = 4.61*** F(10, 194) = 2.25* F(10, 194) = 1.40
Step 4a F(11, 193) = 9.15*** F(11, 193) = 5.83*** F(11, 193) = 7.89*** F(11, 193) = 4.98*** F(11, 193) = 2.79** F(11, 193) = 6.52*** F(11, 193) = 2.48** F(11, 193) = 1.61
Step 4b F(14, 190) = 10.06*** F(14, 190) = 6.19*** F(14, 190) = 7.02*** F(14, 190) = 4.55*** F(14, 190) = 7.87** F(14, 190) = 5.26*** F(14, 190) = 2.32** F(14, 190) = 1.56
Predictor β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj β ΔR2adj

Step 1 .04* .03* .09*** .04* .01 .04* .02 .02

Age −.15* −.13 −.16* −.19** −.08 .11 .03 .11
Gender .11 .11* .25*** .01 .08 −.16* −.15 .10
Step 2 .13*** .15*** .13*** .14*** .05 .14*** .07* .04
Extraversion −.03 .01 −.06 .06 .15 .09 −.00 −.07
Agreeableness .14 .07 .12 −.02 −.00 −.07 −.16 .07
Conscientiousness −.02 .20* .10 .16 −.08 −.09 −.09 −.06
Emotional Stability −.34*** −.37*** −.39*** −.38*** .14 .39*** .21* .12
Openness −.03 .01 .06 −.00 .02 .01 .16 .00
Self-enhancement −.09 −.09 .08 −.04 .02 .01 .02 .13
Step 3 .01 .01 .03* .02 .04* .01 .01 .00
Reappraisal −.01 .13 .12 .11 .17* .11 −.09 .05
Suppression .08 .00 .10 .07 −.17* −.04 −.02 .04
Step 4a .16*** .05** .06*** .02* .03** .08*** .02* .02

Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015

Global TEI −.53*** −.28** −.31*** −.21* .24** .37*** .18* .17
Step 4b .25*** .11*** .09*** .05** .07** .09*** .04 .04
Well-Being −.56*** −.32*** −.35*** −.06 .35*** .27*** .23* −.02
Self-Control −.10 −.20* .01 −.27** −.12 .08 .05 −.03
Emotionality .01 .09 −.07 −.07 .05 .08 .08 .16
Sociability .003 .06 .02 .09 −.02 .03 −.13 .13

Note. TEIQue = Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. The variables entered at Steps 1, 2, and 3 were the same for each model. Step 4 was performed twice for each criterion, the first time with the
global TEIQue score as a predictor (Step 4a) and the second time with the four TEIQue factor scores as predictors (Step 4b). 0 = male, 1 = female.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Andrei et al.
functionally the portion of the variance
accounted for by this predictor. Overall, these
findings suggest trait EI is a robust and unique
predictor of health-related criteria (e.g.,
depression and somatic well-being), thus pro-
viding evidence contrary to the contention
that the predictive utility of trait EI is sub-
sumed under already existing personality con-
structs (Zeidner et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, findings from the present
study also indicate that at the level of trait EI
subcomponents, the factors Emotionality and
Sociability failed to demonstrate unique pre-
dictive capacity. Indeed, only Well-Being and
Self-Control accounted for significant addi-
tional variance in substantive criteria, despite
the low reliability of Self-Control. As a direct
consequence, although these findings further
solidify the already existing evidence attest-
ing to the incremental validity of the TEIQue,
they partly support the claim of an overlap in
the content of predictor (i.e., the factor Well-
Being) and criteria (Zeidner et al., 2012).
Along this line, the present results compli-
ment past findings showing that both Emo-
tionality and Sociability rarely show
incremental validity (Andrei et al., 2015). The
poor contribution of Emotionality and Socia-
bility raises a number of concerns as to
whether their components may fit better with
the construct of trait social intelligence
described by Petrides, Mason, and Sevdalis
(2011) rather than representing valid elements
of trait EI’s construct domain (Siegling, Sak-
lofske, Vesely, & Nordstokke, 2012; Siegling,
Vesely, & Saklofske, 2013). However, as
noted elsewhere (Siegling et al., 2012), their
exclusion from trait EI’s content domain will
render the construct exclusively intrapersonal,
as both factors comprise facets such as emo-
tion perception in self and others, impulsive-
ness and fulfilling personal relationships,
which aim to represent interpersonally ori-
ented emotional experience. These consider-
ations, coupled with the impact of emotions in
many aspects of everyday life and with the
intrinsically subjective nature of emotional
experience, imply the need for new systematic
investigations on the conceptual and the oper-
ational definition of trait EI.
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
9
Limitation and Future Directions
The present study has several limitations.
Given the sample composition of mainly uni-
versity students, our results have limited gen-
eralizability. In addition, although our results
replicated the hierarchical structure of the
TEIQue, future studies might consider con-
ducting a more exhaustive investigation of the
psychometric properties of the Italian transla-
tion of this scale as well as improving internal
consistencies through item-level refinement.
Moreover, future investigations should con-
sider advancing our understanding of the util-
ity of trait EI components. The unequal
contribution of the TEIQue’s subfactors may
stem from differences in domains of applica-
tion, rather than their actual nonpredictive
value. As Emotionality and Sociability refer to
the interpersonal aspect of trait EI, their contri-
bution may be primarily related to domains
with a higher social value compared with those
included in the present investigation, which
instead were more relevant to internalizing
symptoms and somatic health. Another avenue
for future research with the TEIQue relates to
the use of a multidimensional approach to the
study and application of trait EI, which has
been suggested by recent research performed
with other trait EI measures (i.e., Emotional
Quotient Inventory; Keefer, Parker, & Wood,
2012; Parker, Keefer, & Wood, 2011).
Conclusion
Trait EI represents a comprehensive scientific
model of affect-related self-perceptions. For
these reasons, our findings demonstrate the
practical equivalence of the Italian and the other
adaptations of the full-length TEIQue as well as
the original English version (Petrides, 2009),
both in their structure and in their associations
with different criterion variables and predictors,
such as the Big Five personality traits. From a
practical perspective, these results add to the
accumulating evidence that the TEIQue can be
a useful measure in the assessment of affect-
related individual differences. Nonetheless, fur-
ther research is needed to support, replicate, and
expand these findings.
10 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Agnoli, S., Mancini, G., Pozzoli, T., Baldaro, B.,
Russo, P. M., & Surcinelli, P. (2012). The
interaction between emotional intelligence and
cognitive ability in predicting scholastic per-
formance in school-aged children. Personality
and Individual Differences, 53, 660–665.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.020
Andrei, F., Mancini, G., Trombini, E., Baldaro, B.,
& Russo, P. M. (2014). Testing the incremen-
tal validity of Trait Emotional Intelligence:
Evidence from an Italian sample of adoles-
cents. Personality and Individual Differences,
64, 24–29. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.007
Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, M. A., Baldaro,
B., & Petrides, K. V. (in press). The incremen-
tal validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality
Assessment.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005).
Personality, well-being and health correlates
of trait emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38, 547–558.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.009
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H., &
McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of trait
emotional intelligence: Testing and cross-val-
idating a modified version of Schutte et al.’s
(1998) measure. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 555–562. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(03)00114-4
Balzarotti, S., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2010).
An Italian adaptation of the emotion regu-
lation questionnaire. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 26, 61–67.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent,
discriminant, and incremental validity of com-
peting measures of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1147–1158. doi:10.1177/0146167203254596
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation model-
ing with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications,
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
and programming. New York, NY: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni,
L., & Vecchione, M. (2007). Big Five
Questionnaire-2: Manuale. Florence, France:
Organizzazioni Speciali.
Di Fabio, A. (2013). Trait emotional intelligence
questionnaire (TEIQue): Un contributo alla
validazione della versione italiana. [The Trait
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: A con-
tribution to the validation of the Italian ver-
sion] Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca
e Applicazioni, 6, 351–362.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Comparing
ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence,
fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career
decision. Personality and Individual Differences,
64, 174–178. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.024
Fava, G. A., Kellner, R., Perini, G. I., Fava, M.,
Michelacci, L., Munari, F., . . . Mastrogiacomo,
I. (1983). Italian validation of the Symptom
Rating Test (SRT) and Symptom Questionnaire
(SQ). Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 28,
117–123.
Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler,
P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008).
Testing and validating the trait emotional intel-
ligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in a German-
speaking sample. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45, 673–678. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2008.07.014
Gardner, K. J., & Qualter, P. (2010). Concurrent
and incremental validity of three trait emo-
tional intelligence measures. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 62, 5–13. doi:10.1080/
00049530903312857
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual dif-
ferences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348–362. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.85.2.348
Gugliandolo, M. C., Costa, S., Cuzzocrea, F.,
Larcan, R., & Petrides, K. V. (2015). Trait emo-
tional intelligence and behavioral problems
among adolescents: A cross-informant design.
Personality and Individual Differences, 74,
16–21. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.032
Jolić-Marjanović, Z., & Altaras-Dimitrijević, A.
(2014). Reliability, construct and criterion-
related validity of the Serbian adaptation of
the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
(TEIQue). Psihologija, 47, 249–262. doi:10.
2298/PSI1402249J
Andrei et al.
Keefer, K. V., Parker, J. D., & Wood, L. M. (2012).
Trait emotional intelligence and university
graduation outcomes: Using latent profile
analysis to identify students at risk for degree
noncompletion. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 30, 402–413.
Kellner, R. (1987). A symptom questionnaire.
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 48, 269–274.
Laborde, S., Brüll, A., Weber, J., & Anders, L. S.
(2011). Trait emotional intelligence in sports:
A protective role against stress through heart
rate variability? Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 23–27. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2011.03.003
Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific
issues related to research on emotional intel-
ligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26, 411–424. doi:10.1002/job.317
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010).
A comprehensive meta-analysis of the rela-
tionship between emotional intelligence
and health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49, 554–564. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2010.05.029
Martskvishvili, K., Arutinov, L., & Mestvirishvili,
M. (2013). A psychometric investigation of
the Georgian version of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 29, 1–5.
doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000135
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000).
Competing models of emotional intelligence.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human
intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 396–422). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy,
E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Trait
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor
structure, reliability, construct, and incre-
mental validity in a French-speaking popula-
tion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88,
338–353. doi:10.1080/00223890701333431
Parker, J. D., Keefer, K. V., & Wood, L. M. (2011).
Toward a brief multidimensional assessment
of emotional intelligence: Psychometric prop-
erties of the Emotional Quotient Inventory-
Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 23,
762–777.
Pérez-González, J. C., & Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J.
(2014). Trait emotional intelligence anchored
within the Big Five, Big Two and Big One
frameworks. Personality and Individual
Differences, 65, 53–58. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2014.01.021
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
11
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical manual for the
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires
(TEIQue). London, England: London
Psychometric Laboratory.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emo-
tional intelligence: Psychometric investigation
with reference to established trait taxonomies.
European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–
448. doi:10.1002/per.416
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emo-
tional intelligence: Behavioural validation in
two studies of emotion recognition and reac-
tivity to mood induction. European Journal of
Personality, 17, 39–57. doi:10.1002/per.466
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Mavroveli, S.
(2008). Trait emotional intelligence: Moving
forward in the field of EI. In G. Matthews,
M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Emotional
intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (Series
in Affective Science; pp. 151–166). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Petrides, K. V., Mason, M., & Sevdalis, N. (2011).
Preliminary validation of the construct of trait
social intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 874–877. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2010.12.029
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007).
The location of trait emotional intelligence
in personality factor space. British Journal of
Psychology, 98, 273–289. doi:10.1348/00071
2606X120618
Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A.,
Ligthart, L., Boomsma, D. I., & Veselka, L.
(2010). Relationships between trait emo-
tional intelligence and the Big Five in the
Netherlands. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48, 906–910. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2010.02.019
Rafanelli, C., Park, S. K., Ruini, C., Ottolini, F.,
Cazzaro, M., & Fava, G. A. (2000). Rating
well-being and distress. Stress & Health, 16,
55–61.
Russo, P. M., Mancini, G., Trombini, E., Baldaro,
B., Mavroveli, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2012).
Trait emotional intelligence and the Big Five:
A study on Italian children and preadolescents.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30,
274–283. doi:10.1177/0734282911426412
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E.,
Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., &
Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and vali-
dation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25,
167–177.
12 Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Siegling, A. B., Nielsen, C., & Petrides, K. V.
(2014). Trait emotional intelligence and lead-
ership in a European multinational company.
Personality and Individual Differences, 65,
65–68. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.049
Siegling, A. B., Saklofske, D. H., Vesely, A. K.,
& Nordstokke, D. W. (2012). Relations of
emotional intelligence with gender-linked
personality: Implications for a refinement
of EI constructs. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 776–781.
Siegling, A. B., Vesely, A. K., & Saklofske, D.
H. (2013). Advancing the trait EI content
domain: Further evidence for the distinc-
tiveness of interpersonal facets. Personality
and Individual Differences, 54, 81–86.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.010
Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., & Fister, S. M. (2003).
Incremental validity principles in test construc-
tion. Psychological Assessment, 15, 467–477.
Stough, C., Saklofske, D. H., & Parker, J. (Eds.).
(2009). Assessing emotional intelligence:
Theory, research and applications. New York,
NY: Springer.
Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., & Barbaranelli,
C. (2012). Paper-and-pencil and web-based
testing: The measurement invariance of the
Big Five personality tests in applied settings.
Assessment, 19, 243–246.
Vesely, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., & Leschied, A.
D. (2013). Teachers—The vital resource:
The contribution of emotional intelligence to
teacher efficacy and well-being. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 28, 71–89.
Vesely, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., & Nordstokke,
D. W. (2014). EI training and pre-service
teacher wellbeing. Personality and Individual
Differences, 65, 81–85.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D.
(2012). The emotional intelligence, health, and
Downloaded from mec.sagepub.com by guest on July 28, 2015
View publication stats
well-being nexus: What have we learned and
what have we missed? Applied Psychology:
Health and Well-Being, 4, 1–30. doi:10.1111/
j.1758-0854.2011.01062.x
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2008).
The science of emotional intelligence: Current
consensus and controversies. European
Psychologist, 13, 64–78. doi:10.1027/1016-
9040.13.1.64
Author Biographies
Federica Andrei is a post-doctoral fellow at the
Department of Psychology of the University of
Bologna, Italy. Her research interests include emo-
tional intelligence, personality and the psychologi-
cal correlates of assisted reproductive technologies
treatments.
Martin M. Smith is a PhD candidate at the Uni-
versity of Western Ontario, Canada, and is super-
vised by Dr. Donald H. Saklofske. His research
interests include psychometrics, perfectionism, trai
emotional intelligence, test construction and math-
ematical psychology.
Paola Surcinelli is a researcher in the Department
of Psychology, University of Bologna, Italy. Her
research focuses on emotion recognition, alexi-
thymia and emotional intelligence.
Bruno Baldaro is a full professor of Clinical Psy-
chology, in the Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Bologna, Italy. His research interests include
emotional intelligence, emotional abilities and psy-
chopathology.
Donald H. Saklofske is a professor in the Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Western
Ontario, Canada. He is a fellow of APS and CPA.
His research focuses on intelligence, personality
and individual differences.